Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. This is not the same thing as featured pictures. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask at Commons:Photography critiques.

Purpose

[edit]

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons. Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.

Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.

Image page requirements
[edit]
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.
Creator
[edit]
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible unless the photographer is a Commons user. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.

Image quality
[edit]

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting
[edit]

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Value
[edit]

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominate

[edit]

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.

Number of nominations

[edit]

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Evaluating images

[edit]
Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 constructive, stable edits on Commons (excluding user and talk pages), other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Good voting practices

[edit]
  1. Do not have an image moved to consensual review ("Discuss") unless someone else added a vote with which you disagree.
  2. If you think the image meets QI criteria, use "Promotion" right away.
  3. If you think the image does not meet QI criteria and the issues cannot be solved, use "Decline" right away.
  4. If instead you believe that the issues can be solved, leave a comment without changing the status (keep it as Nomination).
  5. Do not add new votes under already promoted or declined images if you agree with the decision. The bot checks the date of the last comment, so this only delays the result.
  6. If a comment raises an unresolved issue, promoting is generally considered impolite. Only promote if the issue is clearly minor, fixed, or incorrect - and say so briefly. If you’re not sure, add a comment (don't change status). Change to "Discuss" only once conflicting votes appear.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first review, the image becomes promoted or fails according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision

[edit]

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 2026.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 2026.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 26 2026 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you cannot make a decision, add your comments but leave the candidate on this page.

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

[edit]

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 01:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms

If you are not ready to Promote or Decline an image, you may leave a Comment instead.

If someone else has already promoted or declined an image and you disagree, you may cast an opposite voice or use Discuss — this will move the image to the Community Review section.

If you agree with a previous decision, there is no need to cast the same vote again, as doing so only delays the final closure of the nomination.

Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


March 26, 2026

[edit]

March 25, 2026

[edit]

March 24, 2026

[edit]

March 23, 2026

[edit]

March 22, 2026

[edit]

March 21, 2026

[edit]

March 20, 2026

[edit]

March 19, 2026

[edit]

March 18, 2026

[edit]

March 17, 2026

[edit]

March 16, 2026

[edit]

March 15, 2026

[edit]

March 14, 2026

[edit]

March 10, 2026

[edit]

March 6, 2026

[edit]

Consensual review

[edit]

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".



File:20260317_Dendrobium_loddigesii_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Flowers of Dendrobium loddigesii in a Greenhouse in the Botanischer Garten München-Nymphenburg, Germany --FlocciNivis 18:08, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 19:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Beautiful flower, but hardly anything in focus IMO. By the way, this is a single flower, not "flowers". --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unfortunate lighting. --Smial 11:41, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me.--Jebulon 23:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:07, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Петергоф,_Эрмитаж_после_реставрации_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Corbels of balcony of Hermitage pavilion in Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 23:45, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The crop cuts off a significant portion of the subject. --Aciarium 07:14, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • The subject here is double corbel of balcony and nothing more. --Екатерина Борисова 01:25, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

File:2022-03-27_Iran,_Shiraz_DSC_0892_DxO.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Courtyard and northern iwan seen from the edge of the prayer hall, Vakil Mosque, Shiraz, Iran --Lrkrol 17:24, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • too high contrast --Gower 07:30, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the review; I see your point! I have raised the blacks in this new version. I prefer not to raise them further: the remaining contrast reflects the strong, bright sun that created equally strong shadows in the scene. --Lrkrol 22:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I think it looks fine already with the way it is, especially after the adjustment. I don't think it needs further adjustment as the contrast highlights the subject as well and the contrast between inside and outside. --EmpAhmadK 16:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments, @EmpAhmadK! If you, or someone else, could turn this into an actual review, I hope this nomination can move to the next stage. --Lrkrol 09:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor lighting, underexposed. Alvesgaspar 21:26, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  per rules I disagree. Very good rework. --Smial 14:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Heckenbraunelle_(März_2026).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dunnock (Prunella modularis) --Romzig 20:04, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 20:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor framing. -- Alvesgaspar 21:15, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment I added a suggested crop. I think it's "QI", but cropping out some of the lower right might help. Please ping me if I forget to vote. --Pdanese 22:50, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Thank you for the reviews and suggestions. I have uploaded a new version. --Romzig 06:32, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support nice. --Smial 14:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. I don't like it: In my opinion, it should be cropped--Lmbuga 22:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Poitiers_-_Église_Notre-Dame_la_Grande_-_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Poitiers (Vienne, France) - Church of Our Lady the Great --Benjism89 06:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 08:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It lacks sharpness, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 14:50, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. Everywhere destroyed details by noise reduction, even visible in A4 size print. Why ISO640 and F/13? --Smial 13:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Info New version with a little less NR and sharpening, it was overprocessed. But you're probably both right, not enough details for a QI. ISO 640 and 1/60 sec because of a very overcast weather on that day, with little light although it was early afternoon :-( --Benjism89 19:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough, we need to continue the discussion.--Jebulon 23:22, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Mairie_de_Sancourt.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mairie de Sancourt--JackyM59 12:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 12:27, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I find this shadow too disturbing. Other opinions? --Екатерина Борисова 01:32, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина --Jakubhal 05:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина --Smial 13:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:43, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Papierni_Prądnickich_Sreet,_view_to_N._Prądnik_Biały,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Papierni Prądnickich street, view to N, Prądnik Biały, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 04:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:39, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much sky IMO and dust spot on asphalt in bottom part of image. All fixable. --Екатерина Борисова 01:37, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I see nothing really wrong with this picture (as compared to many other promoted ones), other than the triviality of the subject. Alvesgaspar 19:58, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ekaterina for decline, but per Alvesgaspar's opinion too. We should be less lenient.--Jebulon 17:27, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Camarón_de_Bruun_(Urocaridella_antonbruunii),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-24,_DD_190.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Clear cleaner shrimp (Urocaridella antonbruunii), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 11:27, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 12:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  per rules I disagree. There's very little of the subject in focus. --E bailey 20:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:23, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Кирха_Святого_семейства_(вход)_-_Калининград_-_2025г.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:23, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Camarón_de_Bruun_(Urocaridella_antonbruunii),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-24,_DD_191.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Clear cleaner shrimp (Urocaridella antonbruunii), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 08:31, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Bad crop. --Kallerna 12:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
    Why that? I tried not to crop out the antennas, which are falling back --Poco a poco 08:49, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness could be a bit better, but for the underwater picture it is good enough --Jakubhal 14:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too unsharp even for a underwater shot. Alvesgaspar 21:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:49, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Mandelbrot_Set_Color_Cycling_Video_1080p_12.webm

[edit]

  • Nomination Mandelbrot Set Color Cycling Video 1080p 8x SSAA --Aokoroko 22:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality Юрий Д.К. 12:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think that this can be a quality image because it is a video. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:18, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Robert --Jebulon 19:01, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:47, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Mandelbrot_Set_Color_Cycling_Video_1080p_16.webm

[edit]

  • Nomination Mandelbrot Set Color Cycling Video 1080p 8x SSAA --Aokoroko 22:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality Юрий Д.К. 12:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think that this can be a quality image because it is a video. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:18, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Robert.--Jebulon 19:01, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:46, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

File:মটকা_-_DSC00420060326.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Motka. By Moheen --ROCKY 10:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Екатерина Борисова 03:22, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
     Oppose Tight crops on every side.--Jebulon 17:18, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose distracting background. --Kallerna 05:33, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment a mask would help.--Jebulon 19:00, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:45, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

File:2025-12-09_Z5-1225_Achim-Lammerts_Lingenfeld-Altrhein.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fishing boats on the Old Rhine in Lingenfeld (Southern Palatinate) in winter. --Syntaxys 12:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.Nice perspective and colors --JackyM59 13:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice framing and colours: that's absolutely true, beautiful image but the trees are affected by a focus blur and a rather strange motion blur.--A.BourgeoisP 22:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, it was a windy day, and the focus is clearly on the boats and trees in the foreground. --Syntaxys 09:47, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture, boats are perfectly sharp. --Plozessor 03:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for a QI --Jakubhal 05:37, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Jakubhal 05:37, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Eastgate_Shopping_Centre,_Inverness.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Eastgate Shopping Centre in Inverness is considered the largest retail catchment area in the United Kingdom and is one of the most popular tourist destinations in the city, being opened in 1983. --TheBritinator 11:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --JackyM59 13:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The dark foreground dominates a large part of the frame and distracts from the main subject --Jakubhal 15:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support maybe I would crop a bit but definitely the shadow does not distract me. --Kallerna 05:31, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Jakubhal, poor lighting. Alvesgaspar 20:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as opposers.--Jebulon 23:18, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 02:52, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Jagiellońskie_housing_estate,_view_from_Obrońców_Krzyża_Street,_Bieńczyce,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jagiellońskie Housing Estate, view from Obrońców Krzyża Street, Bieńczyce, Kraków, Poland. --Igor123121 04:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 05:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Technically it's not bad (except for some purple fringes in the trees), but I don't undestand what exactly is depicted here. We don't see any buildings or trees entirely, or any expressive details. Maybe the main object here is bus stop, but it's also not shown well enough. Other opinions? --Екатерина Борисова 03:15, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Екатерина. --Kallerna 05:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Just a street scene. Юрий Д.К. 10:54, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
    What scene? We don't see any events here, we don't even see the street itself. I can't imagine what Wiki article can be illustrated with this picture, its educational value is very low. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:01, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No composition. --Smial 14:22, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As above. Alvesgaspar 21:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 01:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

File:20220713_Polyommatus_icarus_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Three Common Blues in the nature reserve Südliche Fröttmaninger Heide --FlocciNivis 18:03, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • unnecessary brownish tint --Gower 20:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad lighting, perhaps could be adjusted first before being submitted again, but otherwise it looks too harsh on the subject. --EmpAhmadK 16:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Support Disagree, it's QI. --Lvova 20:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment previously unassessed in 2023 with this comment : "Good quality, but can you crop it - there's a lot of blurred-out space around the in-focus butterflies."--Jebulon 18:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Jebulon. Keeping just the upper part, the unfocused butterfly would be off. Alvesgaspar 20:01, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:34, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

File:Jan_Paweł_II_Avenue,_view_from_W,_Czyżyny,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jan Paweł II Avenue, view from W, Czyżyny, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 04:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 05:08, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose These branches on top left with CA's are very disturbing. Also CA's on left lamp post and on left trees (and maybe on AKF letters) & bad left crop with piece of some sign. --Екатерина Борисова 00:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  • @Екатерина Борисова: the photo has been cropped and chromatic aberration removed :) --Igor123121 06:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Comment OK, technically it looks much better now. But I also don't like this shadow all across the image. Let's wait for some other opinions. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose too'strong shadow.--Jebulon 21:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Smial 14:24, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Екатерина Борисова 01:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Wed 18 Mar → Thu 26 Mar
  • Thu 19 Mar → Fri 27 Mar
  • Fri 20 Mar → Sat 28 Mar
  • Sat 21 Mar → Sun 29 Mar
  • Sun 22 Mar → Mon 30 Mar
  • Mon 23 Mar → Tue 31 Mar
  • Tue 24 Mar → Wed 01 Apr
  • Wed 25 Mar → Thu 02 Apr
  • Thu 26 Mar → Fri 03 Apr